About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11
of the fact that policy is our means, and they are not ends. we think we were for the court taxes or spending restraint, but those are policies we advocate. they're not what we're really for. what we're for are the good things that these policies will yield to the american people. what we're really for is the kind of society that those policies would allow the american people to create -- together. there is one idea too often missing from our public debate, it is that idea, together. in the last few years we conservatives seem to have abandoned words like together, compassion, and community, as if they're only possible meanings were as some sort of secret code for stateism. collective action does not only or even usually mean government action. conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the left when it is the vitality of our committees upon which our entire philosophy ultimately depends. nor can we allow one politician's occasional conflation of compassion and bigger government to discourage us from emphasizing the moral code of our world view. conservatism ultimately is not abo
taxes. this year raising taxes $600 billion. but there was never an agreement as part of the sequester or the budget control act to raise taxes so that's where we have a lawyer at. this is the problem so in the debate and i remember sitting up when the president guaranteed the american people that the sequester wouldn't hap but it is happening. it's happeningright now. it's infil all. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates the cuts on the defense department but finds other cuts in the government to replace them with. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester. he apparently indicates that he does, that he wants to do that raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under the current debt path we are increasing spending every year. the difficulty as i pointed out before our committee so many times is half of the reductions in spending and in the sequester follow in defe which lyup onixt entour rn so that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the difficulties, i suggest that you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, the command
to the budget. the republicans are going to want more tax cuts -- more spending cuts, and the democrats are going to want more tax increases, and i think you'd end up with something that is about 50/50 but that would really be both of them would want to be the pair that solved the yawning budget gap. so, and, you know, i look at my governor, mitch daniels, who i served under -- who's a republican, and he came this and, you know, he -- it was so important for him to change things, to shake things up and -- health care. he pushed an expansion of our medicaid program. with a cigarette tax increase. my god, that sounds pretty democratic. but it, you know, he wanted to leave a legacy with health care. and the one thing that made it republican was it had the health savings account approach. but any, all the other elements -- expanding medicaid to include working adults who didn't have kids and funding with the cigarette tax -- that comes out of the democratic playbook. so, and even our new governor, mike pence, who headed the republican study group when he was a hebb of congress which is -- m
workers pay payroll taxes into a trust fund. all employers pay the same payroll tax into that trust fund and out of that trust fund comes all of the spending or part a services primarily hospital insurance spending. the age i trust funds has exceeded revenue since 2007 and what that means it is the balance of the trust fund and the assets of the trust fund have been declining and they will be totally completed sometime in the middle of the next decade. since the trust fund can't borrow if the laws are changed medicare will be unable to pay full payments for charges in the age i trust fund. it will only be able to reimburse providers 85% of what they are charging. so clearly legislative action has to be made before that he either to raise taxes or slow the growth in spending or preferably a little bit of both. i my reckoning i have completed my assignment and rather than take a gold star as i said i want to have a couple of general observations. the first when we have discussiodiscussio ends like this we should make clear what our goal this. if our goal is to moderate the growth of medica
control act agreement to raise taxes. the president did raise taxes $600 billion, there was never an agreement to raise taxes. so that's where we've got a loggerhead. this is the problem. at the end of debate i remember when the president guaranteed the american people sequester wouldn't happen. but it is happening. it's happening right now in the law. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates cuts on the defense department, besides other cuts to replace them when. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester are apparently indicates he does, but he wants to do it raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under our current day, we increase spending every year. the difficulty is that pointed out before our committee so many times is half the reductions in spending and sequester file on the defense department come which only make ucmj six of the spending in our government. that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the disabilities, i suggest you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, commander-in-chief. i am very worried beca
't been up front with my taxes. this would prevent d.h.s. from say sharing that information with the internal revenue service? guest: the private companies in sharing information, the biggest concern is -- individuals are concerned that their private information within the cyber networks or systems would be held by private companies but then provided to the government, that this private information would not be stripped by the companies first. in the president's executive order, the onus would be on the privacy advocates. companiesthe private to strip any private information that might be caught up within the context of cyber threat information. first one has to understand the definition of cyber threat. it is unlikely but not impossible that your private tax information, your e-mail content would be part of that information that is a cyber threat information that would be given to the government. is there a possibility that it would be lumped in with that? yes. so whose responsibility is it to minimize and get rid of your private information? the bill does not allow the gov
request is woefully late and full of gimmicks, tax increases, generally unhelpful, but we will persevere. let me begin by taking the opportunity to thank the members of the military for their service, their sacrifice that you are representing here today. as this subcommittee has done in the past, we want to reaffirm our commitment to providing our war fighters with the tools, the training, the equipment and the support necessary to carry out vital security missions throughout the world. appreciation for the members of the military and their service can't be overstated. with continued instability in the middle east and northern africa, to the evolving challenges in the asia pacific region, especially north korea, there's no question that those who serve under our flag these days are doing so during a very critical period in our history. world events often remind us that our country, our freedom, our way of life remain a constant risk and we must take measured steps to protect the values that we hold. in this volatile world, increasingly, we are facing enemies both foreign and domestic. we
of it comes from the drug trade. some probably 35 or 40%. some money comes from illicit taxes from afghan people and some money comes from external support from outside the region. >> when you look at the places that they go in pakistan, the frontier areas, double pakistan, -- do you believe pakistan, number one, has control over those areas and number two, can control over those areas? >> senator, pakistan does not have control over those areas right now. they have had over 15,000 killed and wounded in operations in that area over the past decade. they've had hundreds killed and wounded in the past several weeks as they've tried to gain control in the khyber area. i think that's a clear indication they cannot control the border area and the taliban that are operating freely inside of that border area. >> what do you see as a rule for the taliban, if any, in the future afghan government as we transition out, as discussions are taking place. how do you envision that future afghan government? obviously there are elections coming up but how are we looking at the transition for the afghan gov
in cyberspace, and are widely believed already to be responsible for some such a tax. china and russia possess formidable capabilities for cyber theft, such as the theft of valuable intellectual property as well as the more traditional areas of espionage, such as spying on our military weapon systems, plans and capabilities. china in particular appears to observe no limit of the theft of american commercial technology. that's cyber theft as a threat that cannot be tolerated. i hope we'll hear from our witnesses about the extent of the problem, and the steps that we can and should take to counter it. the asia-pacific region, another round of belligerence from the dictatorial regime in north korea has caused concern here in the united states, and among our allies in the pacific. that regime has announced its intention to resume a plutonium production, has tested a nuclear device in february that appears to have had a greater yield than previous tests. and has threatened at any time to launch a missile that uld further exacerbatenons. we have read about conflicting intelligence assessments, north
information is accurate? --t tax for things that can make or --ak our educational system creativity, relevance, technology, teachers. without funding, the educational system is worthless. school systems have to look at budgets and say what can make that? they will not cut math out of the curriculum. they will not cut reading. so they end up cutting the things we think of as esxtras -- cal education,uysicaysi resources that might be educational -- that might be essential to some kids think successful. like this is chelsea and she is a special ed student. >> i have dyslexia. . go to a special at school without it, i would be in trouble because they help me with my dyslexia. if you cut the funds i want to be able to learn from early in my future will be in jeopardy. >> mr. president, every day there are millions of kids are struggling i need help, mr. president. >> dear mr. president, they need your help. please take this. polity education is a major issue in america and must be addressed. it is spinning out of control. the drive america's odense and their contributions to society are in your han
and then eliminate the deficit through two ways. one is increasing the amount of revenue coming through tax policy, or reduce the amount of expenditures by cutting back on expenses and spending or some combination of those two. i believe that the most credible way is through what we call a balanced approach. >> john boehner, republican speaker of the house, emphasizes that spending cuts are the most important and effective way to solve the debt problem. >> republicans want to solve this problem by getting the spending line down. the chart depict what i have said for long time. washington has a spending probleatixed withax incaseslone. he wants to keep chasing higher spending with higher taxes. this chart will look a lot worse. our kids and our grandkids are the ones who are going to because washington was too shortsighted to fix the problem. >> the younger generation will suffer from this issue in the future. >> if we don't solve the national debt problem, eventually they're going to cut more government services, and one of the cuts will be education. >> we should invest in education. it has to be
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11